Paperwhite technology makes the new screen higher-contrast than before.

Amazon has unveiled an updated version of the Kindle Touch, called the Kindle Paperwhite. The new Kindle uses a soft frontlight that can be turned on for reading in low light, and it also includes a higher resolution, 1024x768 capacitive touchscreen with "PaperWhite" E Ink technology that has higher contrast than the E Ink Pearl screens used in previous Kindles. The new Kindle will be available for $119, with a 3G model available for $179—both are scheduled to launch in the US on October 1.

Physically, the Kindle Paperwhite is similar to the old Kindle Touch, but it does make some tweaks: the body of the device is now a darker gray plastic, and the Home button on the front of the old device has been removed. The power button and mini USB port remain on the bottom of the device, as in the previous version. The new Kindle weighs 7.5 ounces, is 9.1mm thick, and is said to get about eight weeks of battery life—this figure accounts for a half hour of reading a day with the frontlight enabled.

The new Kindle follows in the footsteps of Barnes & Noble's Nook Simple Touch, which introduced a model with a frontlight (called a GlowLight) back in April, and the Kobo Glo, a front-lit e-reader with a 1024x768 resolution that Kobo announced just this morning. While Amazon's model trails the competition in this respect by several months, the Nook and Kobo models still use E Ink Pearl screens with slightly lower contrast, and the Nook's screen has a lower 600x800 resolution. Technical specs don't make or break an e-reader, but the Kindle Paperwhite's improvements give it an edge over the competition, and Amazon's huge e-book library doesn't hurt, either.

The fourth-generation Kindle that was introduced last year remains the entry-level model, and will be available for $69 starting on September 14.

Andrew Cunningham
Andrew has a B.A. in Classics from Kenyon College and has over five years of experience in IT. His work has appeared on Charge Shot!!! and AnandTech, and he records a weekly book podcast called Overdue. Twitter@AndrewWrites

165 Reader Comments

Having watched the presentation in its entirety....Baskerville, Caecilia, Caecilia Condensed, Futura, Helvetica, Palatino.

None of these are quite right for book typography, although Baskerville and Palatino are close.

I can't believe we've had five generations of kindle and the display engine still doesn't do hyphenation of and justification. It's not as though the algorithms to do H&J correctly aren't out there in the free software world! It's even been implemented on the Kindle already by independent developers. Give me that and a real book typeface (pick your favorite of Garamond, Sabon, or Minion) and I'll buy one of these things in a goddamn instant. Throw in hardware previous/next buttons and I'll take three.

What would be the advantage to buying this over Nexus 7? For $90 more you get a full fledged tablet. Just wondering.

If you are truly just going to use it for books, then the advantage is battery life.

That is true. However Nexus 7 has a 10 hour battery life while watching movies. I am not sure what it would be while using an ereader, however 10 hours seems like a good deal in exchange for all the other goodies you can get with Nexus 7.

It's not the battery life, it's the fact that this is a reader, a book reader. And peolple who buy it want to read books, not play with a tablet "features". I don't care about a tablet and all the things it does, but I really care for a nice reading experience (e-ink is still far superior to any LCD out there) and portability.E-Ink readers offer this, with no gimmicks to distract.

Having watched the presentation in its entirety....Baskerville, Caecilia, Caecilia Condensed, Futura, Helvetica, Palatino.

None of these are quite right for book typography, although Baskerville and Palatino are close.

I can't believe we've had five generations of kindle and the display engine still doesn't do hyphenation of and justification. It's not as though the algorithms to do H&J correctly aren't out there in the free software world! It's even been implemented on the Kindle already by independent developers. Give me that and a real book typeface (pick your favorite of Garamond, Sabon, or Minion) and I'll buy one of these things in a goddamn instant. Throw in hardware previous/next buttons and I'll take three.

Personally I'd disable H&J anyway, if possible, because I find it makes things harder to read.

Agreed on the fonts, although maybe Minion et al wouldn't look so good until the screen gets into the ~300ppi range. Palatino works well at lower resolutions.

So far I've seen significant improvements in each Kindle refresh, but this time that's not the case.

Sure, higher resolution and contrast is great, and the front-lit screen can definitely have its advantages, but there is no new version with hardware page turn buttons. This means that the best option (for me) is still the non-touch Kindle from last year. No improvement whatsoever.

If they added a version without touch and with hardware buttons (or with both) I'd buy it. Heck, I'd even pay a price premium. As it is, these new versions hold no interest for me.

Sure, you can just tap the screen to turn pages, but that involves constantly moving your finger side-ways, and that's not good ergonomically (especially if you're holding it one-handed with your left hand).

The videos make it look like the backlight is designed to be used all the time, which seems to defeat some of the purpose of e-ink, unless I'm misunderstanding something. Why would a constantly-frontlit screen be any different for your eyes from a constantly-backlit one?

I bought the Kindle Touch when it came out some time ago in the past. I got the one with 3G capability. Then I found out that Amazon won't let you connect to the web using their built-in web browser using the 3G connection. You can only connect using Wi-fi. I was not happy about this. So I am thinking about buying this new Kindle touch but without the 3G. Can anyone tell me why someone would want the 3G model in light of the fact that you cannot get on the web (using the built-in browser)? Surely the non-3G model will connect to Amazon for book buying purposes, so what is the 3G for???

If you want to browse the web with an e-ink device then the only thing you can really get is the Sony PRS-T2

If there is a failing with the approach of "use the right/left margin as a giant button", it is because they are trying to emulate the physical buttons that are gone rather than trying to emulate what actually do with real pages. It should be finger down and moves in a direction.

You can do either on the Kindle.

Quote:

Personally I'd disable H&J anyway, if possible, because I find it makes things harder to read.

This. no need for hyphenation when you aren't trying to save paper by jamming as much on a page as you can.

The videos make it look like the backlight is designed to be used all the time, which seems to defeat some of the purpose of e-ink, unless I'm misunderstanding something. Why would a constantly-frontlit screen be any different for your eyes from a constantly-backlit one?

The display is still reflective, not emissive, which is what makes it easier for some people to read. Think of it as having a lamp on all the time, that's all a frontlight does.

Sure, you can just tap the screen to turn pages, but that involves constantly moving your finger side-ways, and that's not good ergonomically (especially if you're holding it one-handed with your left hand).

Lol, it's still a lot less movement than turning a book page. Also, you can tap, not swipe. The bottom line is that like the eink refresh, after a few dozen pages when you first get the device, it fades into the background and you will never think about it again. I don't know a single person who has gotten and actually used a Kindle Touch (not just tried, but actually read a book) that has had a problem with the mechanics of it.

If they added a version without touch and with hardware buttons (or with both) I'd buy it. Heck, I'd even pay a price premium. As it is, these new versions hold no interest for me.

Sure, you can just tap the screen to turn pages, but that involves constantly moving your finger side-ways, and that's not good ergonomically (especially if you're holding it one-handed with your left hand).

This brings what I said earlier back to mind. People who endlessly complain about not being able to turn pages without swiping or page turn buttons obviously don't know how the Kindle Touchscreen works. You don't need to swipe like a phone. You just lightly tap the screen with your thumb, while holding it in one hand. 80% of the screen can be used to turn to the next page, the other 10% (entire left side margin) is for turning the pages back. The top 10% side is for bringing up menu.

Again, this is NOT a smartphone. I know you all grew up weaned on smartphone swiping but the Kindle is far more intuitive to use (I'm surprised you people didn't even read the short ebook manual it came with that explains all this). I can hold the Kindle in either hand and use my thumb to tap the screen. The thumb is right there when I'm gripping the Kindle one-handed, I might as well use it to turn pages. Tap. Not swipe.

Quote:

The videos make it look like the backlight is designed to be used all the time, which seems to defeat some of the purpose of e-ink, unless I'm misunderstanding something. Why would a constantly-frontlit screen be any different for your eyes from a constantly-backlit one?

I don't think it'll strain your eyes but it would probably still cause insomnia (light-source in the dark) if you read it in bed.

I can hold the Kindle in either hand and use my thumb to tap the screen. The thumb is right there when I'm gripping the Kindle one-handed, I might as well use it to turn pages. Tap. Not swipe.

But presumably you still end up with thumbprints on the margins of the device (and fingerprints on the rest of the screen from navigating/using the on-screen keyboard). Seems like a poor design decision to me.

I can hold the Kindle in either hand and use my thumb to tap the screen. The thumb is right there when I'm gripping the Kindle one-handed, I might as well use it to turn pages. Tap. Not swipe.

But presumably you still end up with thumbprints on the margins of the device (and fingerprints on the rest of the screen from navigating/using the on-screen keyboard). Seems like a poor design decision to me.

So your iPhone/Android smartphone is fingerprint-proof? You might as well as tell them about their poor design decisions.

Sure, you can just tap the screen to turn pages, but that involves constantly moving your finger side-ways, and that's not good ergonomically (especially if you're holding it one-handed with your left hand).

Lol, it's still a lot less movement than turning a book page. Also, you can tap, not swipe. The bottom line is that like the eink refresh, after a few dozen pages when you first get the device, it fades into the background and you will never think about it again. I don't know a single person who has gotten and actually used a Kindle Touch (not just tried, but actually read a book) that has had a problem with the mechanics of it.

Given that I specifically said "tap", and never even mentioned "swipe", I would have thought it obvious that I was aware that you can tap, and don't need to swipe.

You then go on to make the dual mistake of assuming that 1) it's relevant what the limitations of a physical book are, and 2) to overestimate the similarity of the movements involved in the two cases.

1: (Most) Books also do not have built-in lights. Does that make the built-in lights of the new Kindles a small thing? Why do we need to be able to store so many books in a Kindle? You can't normally carry that many physical books around with you. The question isn't if something is more or less work than what we have when using physical books - it's what makes sense to do when using an e-reader.

2: When advancing the page on a (Touch) Kindle, the thumb moves back and forth (a significant distance when using the left hand, since the left-most part does page-back). When turning a page in a physical book, we generally use the entire hand and the arm. This allows for a great variation in the movement used, especially since we have the option of gripping the pages over the entire height of the book. In contrast, turning the page by tapping on a Kindle gives a very narrow range of possible movements (we can also tap the page over (more or less) the height of the Kindle, but since the thumb tends to follow the hand, the page-turn movement is still along the same axis), thus making the action far more uniform. In addition, performing page-turns on a Kindle tends to be far more common that turning a page on a book, both since turning the page of a book usually gives you two pages to read (as opposed to one on a Kindle), and since pages on a Kindle often contains significantly less text that a page in a book.

So, we have a movement with a much more restricted movement, and we perform it more often.

In *my* opinion, the bottom line is actually this:Which page-turn action is the most comfortable/convenient to use is highly individual. There is no doubt whatsoever that for a sub-set of users, having physical page-turn buttons would be much preferable to tapping the screen.

No one is (that I've seen) arguing that physical buttons should be the *only* option to turn pages, and would be perfectly fine with the tap/swipe mechanic to exist alongside it. Why are you opposed to people wanting the *option* of using physical page-turn buttons?

If they added a version without touch and with hardware buttons (or with both) I'd buy it. Heck, I'd even pay a price premium. As it is, these new versions hold no interest for me.

Sure, you can just tap the screen to turn pages, but that involves constantly moving your finger side-ways, and that's not good ergonomically (especially if you're holding it one-handed with your left hand).

This brings what I said earlier back to mind. People who endlessly complain about not being able to turn pages without swiping or page turn buttons obviously don't know how the Kindle Touchscreen works. You don't need to swipe like a phone. You just lightly tap the screen with your thumb, while holding it in one hand. 80% of the screen can be used to turn to the next page, the other 10% (entire left side margin) is for turning the pages back. The top 10% side is for bringing up menu.

Again, this is NOT a smartphone. I know you all grew up weaned on smartphone swiping but the Kindle is far more intuitive to use (I'm surprised you people didn't even read the short ebook manual it came with that explains all this). I can hold the Kindle in either hand and use my thumb to tap the screen. The thumb is right there when I'm gripping the Kindle one-handed, I might as well use it to turn pages. Tap. Not swipe.

You're aware that I said "tap", and didn't mention "swipe", right?

Anyway, since (as you say) the far-left section of the screen is used to turn the page *back*, you thus have to move the thumb a significant distance inward when holding it with the left hand (which, incidentally, is why I said "especially if you're holding it one-handed with your left hand"). You say that you thumb is "right there" when you're gripping the Kindle one-handed, but you're not really holding it *that* far over the screen, right (over the entire bezel, +~15% or so of the display to make sure not to turn the page back)? Personally, I find that I'm obscuring much of the page when holding my Kindle that way, thus negating much of the point of reading books in the first place. For that reason, I'm assuming that you're actually holding your thumb more in the area of the bezel while actually reading, and only move it inward when you want to turn the page. Thus you actually have to move your thumb inward when turning the page, right? Don't you think that some users might prefer to just do a tiny press in the place where they're *actually* holding their thumb (on the edge of the bezel) instead?

Do you think that everyone that would prefer this novel method of interaction are necessarily "weened on smartphone swiping"?

I can hold the Kindle in either hand and use my thumb to tap the screen. The thumb is right there when I'm gripping the Kindle one-handed, I might as well use it to turn pages. Tap. Not swipe.

But presumably you still end up with thumbprints on the margins of the device (and fingerprints on the rest of the screen from navigating/using the on-screen keyboard). Seems like a poor design decision to me.

So your iPhone/Android smartphone is fingerprint-proof? You might as well as tell them about their poor design decisions.

I'm not bothered by fingerprints on my phone; usually I'm just glancing at the screen momentarily. This is not the case for a computer monitor or e-ink display.

I can hold the Kindle in either hand and use my thumb to tap the screen. The thumb is right there when I'm gripping the Kindle one-handed, I might as well use it to turn pages. Tap. Not swipe.

But presumably you still end up with thumbprints on the margins of the device (and fingerprints on the rest of the screen from navigating/using the on-screen keyboard). Seems like a poor design decision to me.

So your iPhone/Android smartphone is fingerprint-proof? You might as well as tell them about their poor design decisions.

Really? Really?

The (by faaaar) most common actions when reading a book are:1) Turn the page forward2) Turn the page backward (#1 already winning over #2 by a huge marigin)

The most common activities when using a smartphone are:1).....n)

Am I the only one thinking that it might be just a teeny tiny tad harder to design an interface using edge-mounted physical buttons to perform all the n actions people want to do on a smartphone, than it is to design an interface that allows you to turn a page forward or back?

No one is (that I've seen) arguing that physical buttons should be the *only* option to turn pages, and would be perfectly fine with the tap/swipe mechanic to exist alongside it. Why are you opposed to people wanting the *option* of using physical page-turn buttons?

Because in practice, the touchscreen works just as well or better (because you don't have to worry about knocking the buttons accidentally). It's a knee jerk reaction to think "I want buttons," but it's not an issue when people get their hands on the actual device. Let me put it a different way, if Amazon's research showed that people preferred physical buttons, they would be on there, because it's not going to impact the cost of the device in an appreciable way.

Quote:

You're aware that I said "tap", and didn't mention "swipe", right?

You said "but that involves constantly moving your finger side-ways" which implies swipe. You can hover your thumb over the bottom corner of the screen and barely move it at all, you can also rest your thumb on the edge of the screen and kind of roll it. There's very little movement needed, and plenty of ways to make it happen. Ergonomically, the Kindle Touch is easier for me to hold, because I don't have to constantly be avoiding the physical buttons. The new one will be even better, because I have inadvertently hit the home button more than once.

The touchscreen works OK, but it is not sensitive enough to reliably turn pages. Simple Touch is more sensitive than Kindle Touch.

I have had zero issues getting the page to turn. You don't need pressure or to leave your finger there, just lightly tap the screen. If that wasn't working, you had a defective Kindle touch.

From what I saw in video reviews of the Kindle Touch and Nook Simple Touch, the Simple Touch is more sensitive. I still turn pages using physical buttons on my Nook Simple Touch.

Xavin wrote:

Quote:

The Simple Touch includes a microSD slot to expand storage.

99.99% of people don't own enough books to fill up a Kindle, you certainly don't need an SD card.

My Nook Simple Touch can be used as a USB storage device, so the microSD slot comes in handy when I need to use it. Also from what I saw, that Nook Simple Touch can easily be rooted thanks to its microSD slot. Though storage capacity of the Nook Simple Touch is 240 MB.

Xavin wrote:

Quote:

Sure the new Kindle Touch includes higher resolution screen, but people will have to zoom in more to see the text.

Err, what? That's not how it works. I'm sure the default text/line/spacing size will be the same on the new Kindles as on the old ones. If it's not, those are all easily adjustable.

Sure adjustable, still lose the benefits of the higher resolution when viewing text. Higher resolution works good for workspace on a desktop, notebook, and tablet. I do not think it works well for an e-Reader.

Xavin wrote:

Quote:

Also a whiter background may seem appealing to others, but not for me. Black text on a white background is hard on my eyes. I need something like a black text on a grey background to read for long periods.

You can't read paper books? Eink is not a backlit screen, the fatigue some people claim from having a white backlit background does not exist on the Kindle because it is reflective. It's like paper, not a computer screen. That's the point.

You miss my point and you sound like an idiot. e-Ink has black text on grey background and I know how e-Ink works. Regular paper is black text on white background which strain my eyes. The new Kindle Touch increase contrast ratio, so their background is close to white compared to previous models.

e-Ink is an opaque display instead of transparent like an LCD. e-Ink has small particles that are colored black on one side and (pale/off) white on the other. They are electrified to rotate. The light feature is through a panel that is placed on top of the e-Ink panel. The light feature is edge lite.

I have a Nook Simple Touch with Glowlight. When I use the Glowlight, I have to set it to the lowest setting (like 1%) or else it will hurt my eyes. This edge lite feature still strain my eyes, so I can not have it on for long periods of time. At the maximum setting of the Glowlight, I can use it as a flashlight.

The Kindle Touch does not have a light feature until the revise version.

Xavin wrote:

Quote:

I do not see the reason why people want a cellular service in their tablet and e-reader when Wifi is always around -- for me that is. The only times that I use the Wifi is to buy books.

Purchases and syncing progress/notes/bookmarks/ratings. There are lots of places where wi-fi doesn't exist or would be a pain to set up, waiting rooms, restaurants, etc.

For me bookmarks are set local. Only times that I need to sync is close to never. Only way for me to get an update of a book is I have to set it to archive and unarchive it. Notes are stored local. Ratings can easily be done when in close contact of Wifi. If I am rating a book, I would use a desktop or a notebook so I can easily type up a review instead of hunt-n-pecking on a e-Reader or tablet. Again the only time that I need Wifi is buying a book. When the book is downloaded, I do not need to access anything. Adding cellular service to an e-Reader is completely useless. Cellular service is best with a cellphone and/or Mifi.

Let me put it a different way, if Amazon's research showed that people preferred physical buttons, they would be on there, because it's not going to impact the cost of the device in an appreciable way.

There probably is some research that a sizable number of people want buttons because the keyboard model is not going away. It isn't getting the newer higher resolution screen nor a light, but it is still around. The last year's "touch" models are gone.

There is likely a high correlation between high value placed on page turn buttons and keyboard buttons for a large fraction of users. ( There is going to be a common thread of touching the screen is going to make it dirty or is "bad" in some way). That does impact costs. By the time have implemented all of the "don't touch the screen at all" buttons and then try layer on touch sensors and/or lights that will turn into something more expensive.

Remember, Amazon is basically trying to sell these things "at costs". It might be a bit different it there was a profit margin involved and just a matter of taking lower, but still positive, profits.

You miss my point and you sound like an idiot. e-Ink has black text on grey background and I know how e-Ink works. Regular paper is black text on white background which strain my eyes. The new Kindle Touch increase contrast ratio, so their background is close to white compared to previous models.

It is questionable how much of that increased contrast ratio is due to the glowlite versus the screen. I think Amazon wants folks to leave the light on all the time for a reason. That "white background" is the light. If you turn the light off the screen will go back to the same tone that e-ink screens have had in the past. [ you can see this in various "hands on" videos and pictures from the demo area where they record what happens when turn the light all the way down. The "white" of the screen goes away. ]

Quote:

I have a Nook Simple Touch with Glowlight. When I use the Glowlight, I have to set it to the lowest setting (like 1%) or else it will hurt my eyes. This edge lite feature still strain my eyes, so I can not have it on for long periods of time. At the maximum setting of the Glowlight, I can use it as a flashlight.

the max Glowlight (and Paperwhite ) setting is primarily intended to be used in brightly lit rooms. Sure it could be used as a flashlight in the dark but that is actually the opposite context in which that setting is intended for.

The videos make it look like the backlight is designed to be used all the time, which seems to defeat some of the purpose of e-ink, unless I'm misunderstanding something. Why would a constantly-frontlit screen be any different for your eyes from a constantly-backlit one?

The display is still reflective, not emissive, which is what makes it easier for some people to read. Think of it as having a lamp on all the time, that's all a frontlight does.

No. The light is edge lite. Easier to read no. The light will still strain the eyes because it will still be emissive. The Nook Simple Touch with Glowlight and Kindle Paperwhite uses similar methods to provide a light source. The Kindle Paperwhite just has a higher contrast ratio which means the background is truer to white compared to previous versions. Previous version background is more off or pale white that is close to grey.

By all accounts and evidence the Amazon Paperwhite and Kobo Glo are using the exact same "pearl" technology XGA display. The claims about improved contrast are the effects of the frontlight, which should be the same on the Kobo.

Because in practice, the touchscreen works just as well or better (because you don't have to worry about knocking the buttons accidentally). It's a knee jerk reaction to think "I want buttons," but it's not an issue when people get their hands on the actual device. Let me put it a different way, if Amazon's research showed that people preferred physical buttons, they would be on there, because it's not going to impact the cost of the device in an appreciable way.

No, it's not a knee-jerk reaction... (well answering in place of your target is one though)

A little context...I own or have owned a Cybook Gen3, Sony Readers (505/700/600/650/T1), a FnacBook and Kindles (G2, G3, G4, G4 Touch).Previously I used a PDA to read ebooks.That's 8 years of using a mobile device to read ebooks, 5 years using a dedicated eInk device, 4 years using a touch enabled eInk device, 4 months of using the Kindle G4 Touch before deciding I had enough...

I have well over 300 ebooks bought, and over 2000 public domains or hand converted ones (and no, none of the readers can handle it all without crashing).I read between 2 and half a dozen books per week, I use my readers to proof-read my own conversions and public domain books.

If I say I don't want touch (either flip or tap) to turn pages, I believe I very well know what I want and why I want it, it's not because I'm allergic to progress or don't know what I'm talking about and just having it in my hand will convince me otherwise.Have the common courtesy to accept that when people state a strong preference for a particular interface, it might be because it's what's making the most sense for their particular use and not because anyone disagreeing with you or having a different use scenario than yourself is a retard.

As for the inadvertent button-pushing argument, that's just a load of bull; When your gesture includes hovering above the screen to regularly turn pages, you're just as likely to inadvertently tap.

In the current case, it's a frontlit e-ink screen, there's schematics and explanations of what is done and how all over the web now, not getting the difference at this point is either trolling or being too damn lazy to do an easy search.

No one is (that I've seen) arguing that physical buttons should be the *only* option to turn pages, and would be perfectly fine with the tap/swipe mechanic to exist alongside it. Why are you opposed to people wanting the *option* of using physical page-turn buttons?

Because in practice, the touchscreen works just as well or better (because you don't have to worry about knocking the buttons accidentally). It's a knee jerk reaction to think "I want buttons," but it's not an issue when people get their hands on the actual device.

Many actually don't feel that accidental page-turns with the physical buttons is a big issue. Also, don't you think that there are also accidental page-turns with the touch interface? (it'd actually be interesting to know which interface more commonly gives accidental page-turns) Do you think that maybe sometimes people accidentally turn *back* a page when they try to advance a page with their left hands?

Both interfaces result in occasional accidental page-turns, but that's not the real issue here. The issue is that people have different preferences, limitations and usage patterns. Some people prefer using a touch interface, and others prefer using edge-mounted physical buttons. Both methods have their advantages and drawbacks. None of them is "best" for *all* users. So, again, why are you opposed to people expressing a desire for a different method than the one you prefer? Do you think that anyone that have different preferences than you are automatically wrong?

Quote:

Let me put it a different way, if Amazon's research showed that people preferred physical buttons, they would be on there, because it's not going to impact the cost of the device in an appreciable way.

Half the Kindle models actually still have physical page turn buttons, so Amazon probably see some benefit in it. The problem is that none of the models with the next generation display have physical page turn buttons. It's possible that Amazon believes that there might be a correlation between people who want "high-end" devices and people who don't want page-turn buttons (and it's possible they are right), but there are definitely people who would like to have a model with both next-gen display and hardware page-turn buttons. You don't have to go further than this thread to see that.

Quote:

Quote:

You're aware that I said "tap", and didn't mention "swipe", right?

You said "but that involves constantly moving your finger side-ways" which implies swipe. You can hover your thumb over the bottom corner of the screen and barely move it at all, you can also rest your thumb on the edge of the screen and kind of roll it. There's very little movement needed, and plenty of ways to make it happen. Ergonomically, the Kindle Touch is easier for me to hold, because I don't have to constantly be avoiding the physical buttons. The new one will be even better, because I have inadvertently hit the home button more than once.

I said "Sure, you can just tap the screen to turn pages, but that involves constantly moving your finger side-ways, and that's not good ergonomically (especially if you're holding it one-handed with your left hand).". The comma indicates that the clauses are connected, and I was thus saying that "tapping the screen involves moving your finger side-ways". In no way does this imply swiping.

Unless you want to keep your finger above the display all the time, you will need to move it back and forth to turn the pages. This is especially the case when using the left hand, since you'll need to click ~15% or so into the display in order to go forward instead of back.

(Out of curiosity, how do people tend to hold their Kindle Touches one-handed with the left hand while lying on their backs and holding the Kindle above their heads? Seems like it'd be a bit... impractical...)

It's not that people *can't* use a pure-touch interface, it's that they'd *prefer* not to when it's possible to have an interface that's superior *for them*.

I said "Sure, you can just tap the screen to turn pages, but that involves constantly moving your finger side-ways, and that's not good ergonomically (especially if you're holding it one-handed with your left hand).". The comma indicates that the clauses are connected, and I was thus saying that "tapping the screen involves moving your finger side-ways". In no way does this imply swiping.

It's a very minor effort. If it requires too much from you, then I wonder how you survived the paper book era.

Quote:

Half the Kindle models actually still have physical page turn buttons, so Amazon probably see some benefit in it. The problem is that none of the models with the next generation display have physical page turn buttons. It's possible that Amazon believes that there might be a correlation between people who want "high-end" devices and people who don't want page-turn buttons (and it's possible they are right), but there are definitely people who would like to have a model with both next-gen display and hardware page-turn buttons. You don't have to go further than this thread to see that.

The DX is slowly being phased out and the Fires are in a different category altogether (mainly functioning as media tablets rather than dedicated ereaders). You don't see people comparing the Nook ST to the Nook Color or Tablet. The only one in this category would be the updated K4(5?). I get that some people like physical turn buttons. However some people don't realize that you can tap to turn the page (instead of swiping) which is why I brought that up. You wouldn't believe how many people on the amazon forums complain about that (having to swipe all the time). Let's leave it at that and move on with this discussion.

Quote:

Unless you want to keep your finger above the display all the time, you will need to move it back and forth to turn the pages. This is especially the case when using the left hand, since you'll need to click ~15% or so into the display in order to go forward instead of back.

That's why the bezel(?) or whatever you call it is there. You place your thumb on it when you're not turning pages. One clearly does not "suspend" their thumb in midair for inordinate lengths of time. Page turning is a very minor effort. Otherwise all KT users would be dropping it in favor of the K4, but they're not. In fact most KT users that I know of from the forums or GR groups are interested in or have already pre-ordered the Paperwhite (basically KT v2). Small sample of roughly a hundred readers on the internet.

Quote:

(Out of curiosity, how do people tend to hold their Kindle Touches one-handed with the left hand while lying on their backs and holding the Kindle above their heads? Seems like it'd be a bit... impractical...)

Replace "Kindle Touch" with Book or any object with significant weight and you'll have your answer. No one in their right mind would read holding anything up with one hand while laying on their backs. I doubt anyone even does that for long with both hands.

It's a very minor effort. If it requires too much from you, then I wonder how you survived the paper book era.

From an ergonomic point of view, it is very different from turning a physical page... try to use it for a prolonged length of time, day after day, and you'll realize what we mean, you arrogant little twat.

Nouda wrote:

The DX is slowly being phased out and the Fires are in a different category altogether (mainly functioning as media tablets rather than dedicated ereaders).

So let's leave the DX and Fire aside, that still leaves with Kindle G3/Keyboard, Kindle G4, Kindle G5/WiFi, Kindle G5/3G... if you count, that's still half the available models of Kindle still sold and produced retaining their physical buttons...

Nouda wrote:

That's why the bezel(?) or whatever you call it is there. You place your thumb on it when you're not turning pages. One clearly does not "suspend" their thumb in midair for inordinate lengths of time. Page turning is a very minor effort. Otherwise all KT users would be dropping it in favor of the K4, but they're not. In fact most KT users that I know of from the forums or GR groups are interested in or have already pre-ordered the Paperwhite (basically KT v2). Small sample of roughly a hundred readers on the internet.

No that's not how you do it, unless you are a bloody slow reader and move your lips while reading, or you really want to have problems with your thumbs in just a few days worth of reading.And for every one of your anecdotal data point of people loving Touch, I have another to the contrary, but that's not the point, the whole point is that a sizable portion of mostly heavy ebook readers (as opposed to casual readers) WANT physical buttons because it's more in adequation with their needs.

What is so special about some people that they believe anything they don't see the point of should not exist or that people seeing it must in some way be inferior to them ?

From an ergonomic point of view, it is very different from turning a physical page... try to use it for a prolonged length of time, day after day, and you'll realize what we mean, you arrogant little twat.

Like I said, if it's too much effort for you perhaps you should be having someone read the book to you instead. Saves you the energy turning the page since that's obviously beyond your physical capabilities.

Quote:

So let's leave the DX and Fire aside, that still leaves with Kindle G3/Keyboard, Kindle G4, Kindle G5/WiFi, Kindle G5/3G... if you count, that's still half the available models of Kindle still sold and produced retaining their physical buttons...

Are you sure you've got the Kindles right? That seems like an awful lot of extra (non-existent) Kindles you're listing. The kindle keyboard is K3, the non-keyboard button version is K4. Those are the only two with buttons...at all. Wifi/3G capabilities are irrelevant to this discussion. The K4 is no longer being sold so that only leaves the K5 (new replacement for K4) and the K3 (which will eventually be phased out once stock runs out). Technological trends are moving toward touchscreens. It's just inevitable.

Quote:

No that's not how you do it, unless you are a bloody slow reader and move your lips while reading, or you really want to have problems with your thumbs in just a few days worth of reading.And for every one of your anecdotal data point of people loving Touch, I have another to the contrary, but that's not the point, the whole point is that a sizable portion of mostly heavy ebook readers (as opposed to casual readers) WANT physical buttons because it's more in adequation with their needs.

You obviously read faster than us mortals because I read around 700 words a minute. If that's "bloody slow" by your standards then well, I'm only human. It's been nearly a year of reading with my KT and I have yet to develop a thumb problem. Perhaps you should make a doctor's appointment to have yours checked out. It sounds like something serious. Amazon has better data on customer demand than you and I do and they're making decisions based on that data. From the looks of things, the KT and its successor Paperwhite are here to stay. There's always the K5 for those who prefer buttons. With its physical page turn buttons I'm sure they'll be reading laying on their backs while holding it with one hand above their heads.

You know what, if you can't comprehend what you read, can't count (the Kindle page still lists 4 items, 3 if you discount connectivity), and lack either the intellectual capacity or honesty necessary to have a conversation, you're not worth wasting time on.

And I love the assumption that a company's research and decisions based thereupon are always right and the best thing to do... I guess you truly are an ignorant idiot after all.

Ignoring for a moment all the people complaining about buttons and typefaces and such, (because, as we all know, there will always be those determined to have the worst time possible finding fault with everything, however small) I would like to examine this comment:

boudewijnrempt wrote:

The nice thing about an eReader is that it doesn't have more features and "dynamicness". I don't want to be offered a chance to check irc when reading a book, because then I would never get to page 50. As it is, with my current eReader (a Sony PRS T1, and very crappy and crash-prone the software is, too, and the battery life is barely two weeks), I manage to read about 400 books a year. I wouldn't be able to do that with an lcd tablet full of distractions.

Sweet Jesus potato-swallowing Christ, that's a lot of books. I've done some marathon reading sessions, I once finished the entire Harry Potter series in under a week, but I can't imagine sustaining that.

You know what, if you can't comprehend what you read, can't count (the Kindle page still lists 4 items, 3 if you discount connectivity), and lack either the intellectual capacity or honesty necessary to have a conversation, you're not worth wasting time on.

And I love the assumption that a company's research and decisions based thereupon are always right and the best thing to do... I guess you truly are an ignorant idiot after all.

You're obviously an ignorant troll who can't tolerate dissenting opinions. Seeing your so called (low-quality) responses degrade to petty insults proves my point. Once your points were invalidated (you clearly stopped using them) you resorted to nitpicking, vague marketing spin and schoolyard name-calling. But carry on oh wise poster. Your opinion is the only one that matters.

Nacko wrote:

Sweet Jesus potato-swallowing Christ, that's a lot of books. I've done some marathon reading sessions, I once finished the entire Harry Potter series in under a week, but I can't imagine sustaining that.

Having an ereader increased most people's reading pace (assuming they kept at it). I've double my reading count ever since I got a kindle from 100 a year (mostly rereading my old books) to nearly 200. 400 book is a bit excessive. I can't imagine reading that many unless they're mostly romance novels or short stories. Most of my books are in the 500-1000 page range (epic fantasies/science fiction/non-fiction).

I said "Sure, you can just tap the screen to turn pages, but that involves constantly moving your finger side-ways, and that's not good ergonomically (especially if you're holding it one-handed with your left hand).". The comma indicates that the clauses are connected, and I was thus saying that "tapping the screen involves moving your finger side-ways". In no way does this imply swiping.

It's a very minor effort. If it requires too much from you, then I wonder how you survived the paper book era.

It's not a question of not being *able* to do it (well, I've seen a very small number of users mention that they get RSI issues from this very type of movement, but I've never personally had any experience of that), it's a question of *preferring* to use an alternative. I use tap-to-turn all the time on my tablet when reading comics. It works well (much better than swiping to turn), and I have no problems using it. However, for something where the vast majority of the usage involves sequential access (such as reading a book), I find using physical buttons on the bezel to be superior (sure, reading comics is also sequential, but tablets are used for so much more than reading books(/comics), so it makes sense to not tailor the UX for this specific usage scenario. Kindles on the other hand are mainly intended for reading).

I *could* use tap-to-turn if I had to, but find the physical buttons to be a significant advantage, and thus a significant selling point. I also find the next-gen display (higher res, built-in light) desirable, but not desirable enough to outweigh the lack of physical page turn buttons. That means that, for me, this new batch of Kindles are no improvement over last year's batch. This is new (and unfortunate), since each refresh prior to this one has brought significant improvements (for me).

Quote:

Quote:

Unless you want to keep your finger above the display all the time, you will need to move it back and forth to turn the pages. This is especially the case when using the left hand, since you'll need to click ~15% or so into the display in order to go forward instead of back.

That's why the bezel(?) or whatever you call it is there. You place your thumb on it when you're not turning pages. One clearly does not "suspend" their thumb in midair for inordinate lengths of time.

This is exactly what I've been saying. If you don't hover the thumb over the display all the time, you will need to move it back and forth to turn pages. I don't want to do this when there is another option that is superior *for me*.

Quote:

Quote:

(Out of curiosity, how do people tend to hold their Kindle Touches one-handed with the left hand while lying on their backs and holding the Kindle above their heads? Seems like it'd be a bit... impractical...)

Replace "Kindle Touch" with Book or any object with significant weight and you'll have your answer. No one in their right mind would read holding anything up with one hand while laying on their backs. I doubt anyone even does that for long with both hands.

Gosh darn it, I must have been doing things wrong all these years.

I'm frequently reading while lying on my back in my bed, and have been doing this since I was a kid. I've been doing this both with books, with tablets, and with my Kindle. With heavier books (and tablets) using two hands is sometimes preferable, but the Kindle is light enough to not require this.

The thing is, you generally want to apply some force on the front of the book/Kindle in order to counteract gravity, or undesirable book/Kindle-nose interaction might ensue. Usually, the thumb plays a big part in this (often together with another finger, such as the index- or pinky-finger). Now, if you're also moving the thumb back and forth to turn pages, this has an effect on the balancing of the Kindle, and thus complicates matters (you don't have this issue with physical page turn buttons). There shouldn't be any real problems with this when using the right hand ("rolling" the thumb near the edge of the screen should be doable), but the situation when using the left hand is somewhat less convenient. This is why I was wondering if people had any good solutions for this.

Can you offer any, or do you maintain that "no one in their right mind would read holding anything up with one hand while laying on their backs"?

What I find astonishing is the passion of some people to defend a reduction in choice, whenever those ergonomic debates arise it's always the same kind of arguments, on one side "But I live Metro/Touch page-turning, therefore anyone not liking it must be a dishonest idiot" and on the other "Sorry but I prefer Start Menu/buttons, it'd be nice to have the option"

Why can't the first crowd behave like normal humans beings rather than being complete scumbags ?What's so special that they feel it as their sacred duty to defend the orthodoxy as imposed by a manufacturer rather than ensure consumer choice ?

Sweet Jesus potato-swallowing Christ, that's a lot of books. I've done some marathon reading sessions, I once finished the entire Harry Potter series in under a week, but I can't imagine sustaining that.

If I'm in a reading phase I can pretty easily do 2 books a day (about 120k words).

Quote:

Why can't the first crowd behave like normal humans beings rather than being complete scumbags ?What's so special that they feel it as their sacred duty to defend the orthodoxy as imposed by a manufacturer rather than ensure consumer choice ?

In this case, because for most people there's a perception that they will have an issue with it, rather than having experienced it themselves and found that they actually do have a problem with it. There will undoubtedly be some people who really do like it less, but in my experience (both in real life and on the internet) they are a tiny minority. Again, if physical buttons were really a crucial feature, then they would be there, because Amazon's goal is to sell books.

Quote:

Sure adjustable, still lose the benefits of the higher resolution when viewing text. Higher resolution works good for workspace on a desktop, notebook, and tablet. I do not think it works well for an e-Reader.

You have a complete misunderstanding of display resolution. Resolution is entirely independent of text size. They could double, triple, or even multiply the resolution by a thousand, and still display the text at the exact same size, it will just be clearer.

What I find astonishing is the passion of some people to defend a reduction in choice, whenever those ergonomic debates arise it's always the same kind of arguments, on one side "But I live Metro/Touch page-turning, therefore anyone not liking it must be a dishonest idiot" and on the other "Sorry but I prefer Start Menu/buttons, it'd be nice to have the option"

Why can't the first crowd behave like normal humans beings rather than being complete scumbags ?What's so special that they feel it as their sacred duty to defend the orthodoxy as imposed by a manufacturer rather than ensure consumer choice ?

First of all, "reduction of choice"? This isn't civil rights. You're being excessively dramatic, in my opinion.

Second, I suspect you're having a hard time in this conversation because you are bleating about the ergonomic difficulty of having to tap the screen versus press a button. The movement is going to be almost identical and it's no great hardship either way. Those who have given it a fair shake appear to forget the difference before long, becoming absorbed in that thing that one does with eReaders.

Third, you have more choices now than you have ever had before. If you must have your buttons (and I respect your preference, even if I don't personally see its importance), then by all means, buy one of the Kindle models that has those buttons or take your pick from the growing pool of other quality eReader devices on the market.

There are solutions, it's no one else's fault that you refuse to take them.

No thank you, when I say I prefer buttons over touch any time of the day for turning pages, it's because of regular use, for years, of both, so I'd just love not being treated condescendingly as if I were retarded because my use case and ergonomic preferences are not the same as yours, the majority of users or the manufacturer's choice, thank you very much.

Amazon wants to sell a lot of books, but is more interested in the masses buying a few books here and there and not very much in the very few of us buying many more, because in the end, there are so many casual readers.

I don't believe that pandering to casual anything is going to get us anywhere.

Nacko:Let's see, a reader offering both buttons and touch doesn't deprive touch users of anything, a reader offering only touch, does deprive button users of their preferred ergonomy, so yes, that's technically defending less choice, especially when other manufacturers offer both interfaces without drawback.There's nothing theatrical about it, it's just a statement of fact, putting that on the same level as civic rights is your own fault, not mine

I'm not really having a hard time thank you very much for caring, I'm just amazed at the amount of fervent reverence some manufacturers manage to create when one dares not agreeing. It's almost Apple-like, the church of "Amazon knows best".I'm only having trouble with people whose only line of argumentation is basically "buttons are dead, touch is great, if you don't agree it's because you're either a liar or a retard".I guess these people were bitten by buttons when they were young, or a horde of buttons burnt their farm and raped their sister, they must have a reason.

And no, having your finger rest on a button and regularly having a very short down movement (that's a very short course) is not the same as either having your finger hovering and depressing (with a longer course than a button), or worse, moving sideways from his rest on the bezel and depressing (with a longer course than a button).It's nothing in itself, but repeat it enough and you'll understand the difference.As already stated, I've owned touch enabled readers since the PRS-700, I've used a K4 Touch for 4 months before throwing the towel... so no, touch for turning pages is just not for me, live with it and please accept that some people might prefer buttons.Also, as stated by someone else, buttons can allow holding the reader in unorthodox positions and still turn page, while touch makes it a bit more acrobatic.

Of course it doesn't matter much, yet, because I have choices, but being touch only will be a selling point with the most interesting target, the casual reader, and the casual reader will love it, because it's just like the iPad, sleek, no buttons, they are sooooo 20th century you know...And soon even Sony will drop buttons and before we know it, the only readers with buttons will be crappy OEM ones using n-2 gen display and buggy software.Also as long as DRM are part of the equation, the choice of manufacturer matters to casual users (and more serious ones as dealing with DRM involves more steps and potential legal exposure).